carl

Logical, but disappointing: Reynolds vetoes medical cannabis bill

May 27, 2019

Reynolds has been consistent

Reynolds have been consistent in following the direction from the board, and it was consistent to veto a bill that does not follow the direction from the board. The bill removes the 3% cap on THC and replaces it with 25 grams per 90 days. The board recommended leaving the cap in it’s annual report, which is how it let’s the legislature know it’s position on THC. The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act assigns both of these duties to that board, reviewing the cap and making an annual report. These are mandatory duties. A board member resigning in protest on March 30. The Senate Judiciary Committee then amended the bill to return to the 3% THC cap. Then the board held an emergency meeting on April 16 and sent a letter to the legislators and the governor recommending replacement of the 3% THC cap with a 4.5 gram per 90 day limit, which wasn’t in the bill or the Senate amendment. The senate decided not to spend any more time on it and rejected the Senate Judiciary Committee amendment and passed the bill with the 25 grams per 90 day limit. So, Governor Reynold received a bill that did not conform to either of the board’s recommendations.

The arguments made to the board on April 16 should have been made before the annual report was filed in January. That’s how it should have been done. It’s the same board. If they accepted a gram limit instead of a percent limit, that could have been done before the session started.

You want to blame the Governor, but I blame whoever thought up this stupid end run around that board. The bill should have simply abolished the board to make it consistent with the approach that was taken.

Logical, but disappointing: Reynolds vetoes medical cannabis bill

May 26, 2019

I agree

I agree with you on the timing. The board’s recommendations were available on January 1 and there were no bills filed with those recommendations in them. All of the bills went beyond those recommendations. However, the key piece is the THC recommendation, because that one is the most controversial. The way Upmeyer made the announcement that she was lifting the THC cap after talking with “some” of the board members a week or two before the deadline for filing new bills made me cringe when I heard it. That board votes on its recommendations and “some” of the board members cannot speak for the board without taking it to a vote first. So, Reynolds could not have possibly anticipated that Upmeyer would do something like this.

What really happened last week with the medical cannabidiol bill?

Apr 01, 2019

Listen better

I think Rep. Klein adequately described the input that was received as a mixture of advice from the board and from both parties (others). The advisory board member acted inappropriately. The 3% cap on THC came from the legislature, not from the advisory board. The removal of the 3% cap is a decision for the legislature, not an advisory board.

View More...